lastremnantfandomcom-20200223-history
Template talk:Infobox item
I found only 3 other ways for item use: weapons, shields upgrades; item creation; wanted by leaders. So you can put it into infobox if you want. And maybe change "Quest" to "Quest Reward"? Andrety 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Sounds like a good idea, the wanted by leaders is technically an upgrade Sarmu 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I think this template is needed to be changed. My offer is to make it look like a table: and so on. And make categories visible only if there is something in them because quite a lot of items can be obtained in 1-2 ways only. I think this will make item pages look better. PS: i would make it myself but i am not very familiar with HTML and preview does not show the changes i make. Andrety 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :: Eventually it will be changed to display "None" when we are sure that we have all the data available. That was users aren't thinking the page is incomplete. (if one page has a treasure header and one doesn't, the user may just assume that we've not looked for it in treasure and spend ages trying to find it). As for designing it that way.... I think things look a lot neater in columns rather than rows, all the other pages (such as monsters) are also in rows and it adds consistency. The item uses definitely needs some form of template to be used, but I'm quite happy with how the components look. After all, if you change the components then the consumables need changing to match for consistency and there's no point making a lot of work when something is perfectly adequate. :: I don't think the shop needs any more information as we already have the location and shop name given, same with the guild. As for the treasure... I don't see how to can separate it out to treasure1 and treasure1 location... We currently have a treasure 1 (that's the location like Flaumello Tower) and a treasure 1 sublocation (that's the little sub bit like central sluiceway for the acqueducts) which provides people with a more accurate link rather than having to scroll through the entire page. :: Andrea 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) :I was under the impression that the current template was just for data collection and was going to be re-hashed when we knew more about how much space would be needed for each section. IMO there's still not enough information to be making that kind of change, although some inadequacies have come to light - it looks to me like Disassembly and Upgrade need their own multi-column lists at the bottom of the page. :Personally I'd prefer to see empty sections if'd out of the final article, I think it would look neater and more concise. I believe that someone looking at a page that states an item is dropped by X monster and split from Y and Z, but with no mention of treasure, would assume that it just isn't in treasure rather than assuming that it is but that the data is missing. However, it's not something I feel that strongly about, I have no problem with a "Treasure: none" section if that's what the community decides is best. :Also, I have to agree with Andrea that columns work better than rows in this instance - mainly because the content for each page varies so much. There are some components that are dropped by a lot of monsters, and some that are unique splits from just one. :Anyway, back to the old (and usual) answer to the redesign question: Insufficient Data. :Ferret37 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Requested by soldiers I was just update the Circular Albic Hide page and there are 40+ soldiers requesting this item. That's too much and I don't think listing all of them on the item page is any helpful. Therefore I would propose to not list the soldiers at all. - Merthos 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I agree, it doesn't appear to be usefull at all, especially soldier only has 1 upgrade path and it's pretty much determined by the weapon, so it can pretty much derived. Since we already list Used to upgrade x weaponn to y weapon, there is no need to list soldier's request, to some extent I don't think we need to list requested by Leaders Sarmu 08:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) How about putting it into the upgrade header like this: 'Upgrades (might also be requested by Soldiers using this weapon):', or using a variable (soldieritem = Combat Broadsword) that would put out 'Will be requested by soldiers using a Combat Broadsword'? Drake178 10:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I would definitely go (soldieritem = Combat Broadsword) route if we still want to add some soldier request info Sarmu 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC) And what useful information does this provide? There is no mapping from the weapon to the soldiers (apart from "What links here"). Still voting for nothing. - Merthos 14:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah thats true, without linking the weapons (Leaders/Soldiers using this weapon:...) this information is not very useful. However, on that same note the whole 'Will be requested by' section is pretty much useless, because 1) you don't lose anything by not giving it to them, 2) they will upgrade without the items if your BR rises 3) leaders will ask you to get them the components they need anyway. The only way this information would ever be even remotely useful is the extreme scenario of you wanting to fight as little as possible, have two leaders that want the item in your active party in a set order you wouldn't want to change and you only wanted to upgrade one of them. In my experience the request order is pre-defined, active leaders get first dibs on anything, then reserve leaders, then active soldiers, and finally reserve soldiers (and the active party goes union by union left to right, and within the union character by character top to bottom). Still, if you want to go through with it and do leaders only that's fine, just don't think there won't be long lists there too. For example, Reprocessed Metal is used to upgrade to the following: Ninja Wakizashi, Ninja Katana, Ninja Otachi, Champion's Khukuri, Champion's Broadsword, Champion's Bastardsword, Champion's Mace, Commander's Striker, Champion's Hatchet, Champion's Francisca, Champion's Tabar-Zin, Elite's Pike, Champion's Lance, Champion's Halberd, Champion's Rod, Elite's Cudgel, Elite's Buckler, Elite's Kiteshield. Know any leaders with these in their upgrade trees? I'm sure it's more than the 4 listed on the page right now :P. And then there's Blacksteel Ore, Mystic Skelenyte, Necrotic Metal, Divine Metal, and probably a bunch of others. I know they are all metals and i also know that harvest/shop only components don't appear as battle spoils and hence won't truly be 'requested' at all. I say forget the whole request thing >< Drake178 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with removing this section myself, it's just that a bunch of peoples keep adding them and if they do so it should be somehow consistent. - Merthos 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Also regarding upgrade and dissassemble, I think it's not practice to list all item, I think it's good enough with things like "Disassemble some Auld Weapon" or Upgrade Divine Weapon to Damascene Weapon etc Sarmu 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I did think about that too, but while it may work with endgame metals, on the lower levels the upgrades are divided into two (or more) groups of weapons which require different metals for the same tiers, and then there is also Imperium as a special case for which the only way of obtaining it is via disassembling stuff. I don't mind listing all of them if there's no drawback to extending the template file, my only concern is that i have no easy way of alphabetizing the upgrades (without which it does look a bit overwhelming). I can do it for the disassemblies though. Either way, it's only the metals that have these ridiculous lists i think, once that's done the rest should be a lot shorter. Drake178 06:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Syntax for Leader Requests? Can this template display item requests from leaders? If so, what is the appropriate syntax for it? Vyx 01:36, May 8, 2010 (UTC) :Yes it can, using the data fields "leader" or "soldier" (eg "|leader=Baulson"). However, this is currently very weak, and needs expanding out for multiples and internal links. You up for the job, or do you want me to take a look at it? Ferret37 18:31, May 8, 2010 (UTC) ::There are several reasons why i've never done that and don't intend to either. First and foremost, let's see the informational value. Why would you want to know from an item (component) page the leaders that will request it? I can't even think of a situation where this would be any useful at all, so help me out here. But allright, lets look past that and say we want this. The wall of text on some of the components would look really neat! There will be several components with a gazillion leaders listed, some with just, say, 20, and some with none at all. The ones with the gazillion leaders will be the ones that already have a gazillion upgrades listed as using the item (since every leader using that upgrade will also very likely want the item), so in effect it's just doubling up information that's already present by breaking it down even further. The only upside would be more crosslinking within the wiki and more text on some of the individual pages. There's also the amount of work required, which could be much better utilized elsewhere, like, say, adding in all the weapon requests to the weapon pages, and working through all the individual components and filling out all the item uses. Doing this would effectively provide the same data within one click of the component page with all the different item pages actually having useful and relevant information. ::Anyway, as you can probably guess this topic has surfaced a few times during my course as an editor here and noone's ever done it (and i never had the patience to remove it from every component page either, which is why it's all mixed up as it is now). I understand every RPG'ers urge to provide as much information to everyone else as they can, but in this case the information itself is completely useless. Still, if you guys want to go ahead with it, by all means, do so. There are a few things you should keep in mind though. Adding in a component request without adding in an item use will have the reader wondering what the leader will use the item for, with usually no clear reference on the leader pages as to what that component will be used for (ie have to search the component table to find it). If you add both of these in, the situation is a little better, but with multiple-use components it can still be a pain to figure out who requests what for what reason. Adding the weapon requests in at the same time (on the weapon pages) mostly clears this up as a single click on the weapon will tell you what leaders will request its materials, but if both of these are already added there's no real need for the component request as they will only be used to upgrade weapons. ::Now to provide some actual help if you do want to do this, the way i'd go about it is something like this: Used to upgrade a Draconile Francisca to a Divine Francisca (requested by the soldiers Abelle, Chamberland, Collins, Otto, Verne, and Vincent) ::This is fairly easy to do modifying the current template, but with some components having 50+ item uses this modification will be a major pain as every item use line will have 40+ extra variables in a 2+ deep extra if statement resulting in 2000+ lines in the template. On the bright side, soldiers can be greatly simplified by creating separate templates for each weapon and using them from within the general item template, but that's still plenty of template writing. For an appetizer, take a look at something popular, like Damascus Ore, and pause for a moment to think through what it would look like (not that it'd be much worse than it already is). There are much bigger fish here than component requests if you have spare time to kill :P Drake178 19:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC) :Oh and in case you'd be wondering what fish i'm on about, look into some of the tables linked from my user page and realize that half of the data in them is NOT readily available on the wiki (ie the pages are not crosslinked), and those are just the few tables i bothered putting up from the database while working on a proper viewer. Drake178 19:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC) :The previous section of this talk page is also mostly about this same subject. Read it for some more cons if you want... Drake178 19:55, May 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're absolutely right. Sorry, should have read the earlier section, that conversation happened after I'd dropped out. ::To put it in a nutshell, the information is simply not useful on that page, and is already present on the page where it is useful. ::I agree that this info should be part of the wiki eventually, but when we've got everything else sorted out. And you have no idea know how many other things fall into this category... ::Ferret37 00:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :::The reason I asked about leader requests is because I saw it listed on some component pages, so I figured if it's something supported by the templated, I might as well edit them when I do run across them. You are correct that the informational value is marginal, though it could help you decide when to disassemble an item, assuming that party members will clone the resulting components. Is that the case by the way? ::: Also, is there an easier way to keep track of pages on this wiki? I supposedly followed this talk page when I posted my question, but neither of your replies showed up in my followed pages activity feed. Vyx 23:36, May 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Requests are listed on the component pages because i never had the patience to remove them all or the diligence to remove the ones being added constantly. I don't know how cloning works, and i don't think i'll ever find out either. I assume you'd want to disassemble something when everyone would clone the same item from it, but then you'd also need the focus listed that they'll resuest it with and even then you'd have to look up each individual leader to find out how far they are from the equipment level they'll need the component at. Not to mention that by then they'll probably just buy them without your help. ::As for following pages, the only reason i've ever done that is so the pagename is bold on the recent changes page and i can look at those first. That pretty much means i don't know any more about it than you do :P Drake178 04:25, May 10, 2010 (UTC) :::Just found the Components Cloning page on this site, and it indicates that components from disassembly are indeed cloned. It is still very expensive, but it can be a time saver for certain rare components I suppose. Anyway, I'd like to figure out how accessory cloning works first before I do anything else, and that seems like something that's hard enough already. Vyx 08:01, May 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::I just realized there is a very good reason for including leader requests on component pages, and I can't believe it slipped my mind earlier. There are many components in this game that can only be obtained from monster splits. The problem here is that when you are trying to decide whether to split or monster or not, you cannot check the inventory of your party members at the same time to see if they might benefit from the split. The only information that can help you at that point is to look up the wiki page of each component, and see if there is a warning that it might be needed by one of your leaders, after which you can look into that character's upgrade line for more details. Based on this utility alone, I think we should leave the leader request information on each component page, and even try to better integrate them into the template as a long term goal. Vyx 07:09, May 11, 2010 (UTC) :::I understand what you're saying, but I honestly think that anyone who is keeping that close an eye on the components required by their crew will recognise what's available - and will in fact be looking out for it. :::As a random example, if Oakes want to upgrade his Superior Bladebreaker and needs Pangu's Bones, the average user is going to click on the components link on the character page to find what drops or splits for it, and specifically aim for fighting those monsters. Very few (if any) people are going to systematically check every component page after every battle on the off chance that someone might need something (now or sometime in the future). :::As to deciding if you're going to split a monster or not, I still don't think extra information here will influence many people. On all my playthroughs, the decision on whether to split or sell has been based on my current inventory, available on screen - if it gets me something new or something I'm short of I'll split, otherwise I'll sell. :::Having said all that, you're right in stating that the information should be in the wiki. But as Drake pointed out earlier there are enormous formatting problems. The same ones in fact that I was concerned about this time last year (the post near the top of this page). If you can suggest a good format for the page, that covers everything from "none" to "all" characters wanting an item, I'll help you with the template. Otherwise, I'm still viewing the component pages as data collection zones awaiting a final format which will happen some time before the universe collapses back in on itself, but beyond that I'm not prepare to commit to a timescale. :::On the subject of following pages, I believe that discussion pages (with the exception of your own User:Talk page) are excluded, and you'll only get notification of article pages being changed. :::Ferret37 00:12, May 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::I used to base my decision for splitting on current inventory levels as well, but then I realized that party members will never take anything from your inventory to upgrade their weapons. Components can only be passed on to party members when they are distributed through disassembly, loot, or splits. Since it is only during splits that you are unable to access each character's inventory, that is the time when the wiki pages are most helpful. I agree that many components have distinct names that make them easy to remember, but I also find myself tripping over all the different versions of mystic fiend fur/horn/meat/fang/talon/husk/bone/scale too. ::::Perhaps a good middle ground here is to limit leader requests to just the unique leaders. I think there is only a total of 48 of them, and no more than a dozen would need the same component in their upgrade paths. To remind the average user of this, the template could be adjusted to read "Requested by the unique leaders...", then automatically link each listed leader. Here is an example of what it might look like with the links included. Even with more unique leaders added, I think this bit of information can be compressed to within two lines on each component page. Does that sound reasonable to you? ::::As for following pages, I just got notified of changes on a discussion page for normal articles, so I think the exclusion applies to template pages instead. Is this something that can be fixed by the way? Vyx 02:58, May 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::I should add that for the special case of components like Reprocessed/Necrotic Metal, we could instead just put a note that states most leaders will need that component at some point in their weapon upgrade path. Clearly these are also the components that everyone will remember because it shows up on every character's inventory For the rest of the components that aren't as popular, I still think it would be helpful to retain the leader request information, especially since it will just cost us a couple lines of text. Vyx 03:03, May 13, 2010 (UTC) :I don't quite see the logic behind checking the wiki to see whether you should split something because it requires you to know off the top of your head the exact weapon your leaders are upgrading to. While this might be feasible on the XBOX, it definitely isn't on the PC. If you don't know it, then you have to look it up somewhere first, which you will do on the leader page and NOT on the component page, where you can see the complete upgrade path and components for each upgrade already. If you look it up elsewhere, like writing it down into a notebook, then you might as well right away write down the components instead. :The problem with the good middle ground of unique leaders only is thata lot of people only read what they are looking for and nothing else. They will still try to add the rest as well and then get frustrated when they can't. :On another note, you have given two examples so far, neither of which have anything to do with requesting components, they both have to do with cloning them, so before we continue this discussion i suggest we clear a few things up. I'd say forget requests altogether, at least for components, since they have no informational value. This would end the current discussion, and we can open a new one about cloning. Obviously that will mean someone has to find out exaclty how leaders get their hands on stuff other than requesting them. Drake178 22:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC) ::It seems like we will just have to agree to disagree here. Perhaps this is a matter of differnt play styles, but I find it completely illogical to not double check the function of components before splitting. I get bored by easy and repetitive battles, so I do not do full area clears at all. Typically I will run around avoiding most spawns, and only engage when I find something interesting; either a rare spawn or some large/challenging collection of regular monsters. Because I tend to fight much fewer battles, it is important that I maximize the efficiency at which I gather both gold and components. The decsion on when to split a monster is therefore not as trivial as you make it out to be. ::Although I do not write down the exact weapon of every character in my party, I do at least know what type of weapon they use, and I also know that individually they will be within one upgrade level of the rest of the party because I always hunt for components to upgrade the weakest members. With the wiki reminding me of what each component can be used for, I can avoid missing critical splits and save up for expensive leaders, items, and consumables at the same time without having to farm with Mr. Diggs. ::The discrepancy between XBox and PC versions also appears to be exacerbating our division here. Listing unique leaders on the component pages is very useful for the PC game because your party will consist almost entirely of unique leaders. It is also much easier to remember what weapon each character is using because they each have distinct looks and sounds. ::In so far as the frustration of not being able to add additional information, you are seeing it in action right now. Ultimately all this information should be included in the wiki anyway, so even if you see it as low priority, what harm is there to let others do the work? Two lines of extra text cannot be such an eye sore, and if you are worried about regular leaderes and soldiers getting listed, that is just more reason for us to adjust the template so this information can be properly integrated into collapsable text box for example. ::In regards to requesting vs. cloning, I will admit to slipping on the nomenclature, but the distinction does not affect the utility of including said information on each component page. To avoid confusion, we can rephrase the leader request section differently, such as "The following unique leaders will need this component to ugprade their weapons/shields", and that will cover both requests and cloning. Vyx 21:01, May 14, 2010 (UTC) Used by Your first real idea. Put into this context i understand your logic, from the component page you see both the weapons upgraded with it and the leaders that use any of them, which probably grants you the knowledge of whether that component is needed at that moment or not. Combined with the knowledge of how many your leaders already have of the component (with a high likelyhood of either all or none), you decide whether to split or not. And if that wasn't enough then you'll eventually farm it out anyway when it's only needed by the weakest leader(s). It's still quite simple to me, though i'd think most people just farm for what they really need and don't care about the rest. Your other argument is quite right either way, and i wouldn't have stopped you from adding this data anyway (it was me who added requesting to the template after all). In this context i still find the word request inappropriate though, so i'll change that. Drake178 22:25, May 14, 2010 (UTC) :Thank you! But did you want to also adjust the bulleted text to read the unique leader(s), or do you prefer to leave the term unique out? Vyx 21:37, May 16, 2010 (UTC) I prefer it the way it is, not everyone knows who they are and will add others as well. Drake178 03:57, May 17, 2010 (UTC)